1. - Core question that falls for consideration in the instant matters is - whether Intra court Appeal lies to the Division Bench against the judgment/order of Single Judge rendered in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

2. Since impugned judgments under these two appeals have been passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the Single Bench of this court, they are taken together for disposal. Brief resume of the facts is that interim order dated February 19, 2004 of Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur was assailed before the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition No.1691/2004. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated March 24, 2004 set aside the order of Tribunal and allowed the writ petition. Against this order of learned Single Appeal No. 253/2004 has been preferred by the appellant Sher Singh Meena. Whereas the order dated April 29, 2003 of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Kota rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was affirmed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 4471/2003 vide order dated August 7, 2003. This order has been called in question by appellant Vinay Kashyap in Appeal No. 1027/2003.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that impugned decisions have been rendered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 both, therefore, appeals are maintainable. Reliance is placed on Ratnagiri District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve and others, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 9 , Sushila Bai Laxminarayan Mudiliyar and others v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha and others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 11 and Punjab National Bank v. Purewell and Associates Ltd., 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 67 . Per contra learned counsel for the respondents urged that the writ petitions were virtually revision petitions and came to be decided in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 therefore instant appeals are not maintainable.

4. We have pondered over the submissions.

5. A bare look at the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution demonstrates that these two articles stand on an entirely different footing. While under Article 226 the High Court has power to issue directions, order and writs to any person or authority including any government. Article 227 confers upon power of superintendence to High Court over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The power under Article 227 is supervisory jurisdiction intended to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within the limits of their authority and according to law. The orders, directions and writs under Article 226 are not intended for this purpose and the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Courts by Article 227 is in addition to the power provided by Article 226. The powers conferred by Articles 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. These two processes are not the same. Their source and origin are different.

6. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Umaj Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 401 , indicate that the proceeding under Article 227 is not an original proceeding. Whereas proceeding under Article 226 is an original proceeding when it concerns civil rights, it is an original civil proceeding.It was therefore observed that, "The appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge to the Division Bench was rightly dismissed as being not maintainable because under clause 15 of the Letters Patent an intra - court appeal against the decision of the Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 is barred."

7. In Ahmedbad Manufacturing & Calico Co. v. Ram Tahel Ramanand (1972) 1 SCC 898 , their Lordships of Supreme Court held that power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 is virtually a revisional jurisdiction. It was observed thus:- (Para 11)

"Article 227 of the Constitution no doubt does not